LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Inelegant Framing of Claims — Court May Strike Out Offensive Words in Interest of Justice
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Courts have shifted away from narrow technical approaches and now pursue substantial justice. In the interest of justice, the court may strike out offensive words in a claim without striking out the entire claim.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Ezekwesili & Ors v. Agbapuonwu & Ors (2003) NLC-1081998(SC) at p. 35; Paras A–C.
"Conscious of the fact that our courts have now deliberately shifted away from the narrow technical approach to justice which characterised some of their earlier decisions but now pursue, instead, the course of substantial justice, I am prepared in the interest of justice to strike out the words complained of, to wit, 'and possession of' in line 1 of claim (i) and the words 'from continuing in possession or' in line 3 of claim (iii) and it is hereby accordingly so ordered."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts may strike out offensive words rather than entire claims. The principle applies to civil procedure. Substantial justice overrides technical precision. The rule promotes flexibility. The court may amend pleadings to achieve justice. The principle is well-established.